The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

According to RealClear Markets, the average temperature around the world fell 0.56 degrees Celsius during that time period, the biggest dip in temperatures since a decrease of 0.47 degrees Celsius from 1982-1984.

You people have hated NASA for years, not to mention science.
You get a tiny bit of good news for your cause, spanning almost two years, and
suddenly NASA is your champion? What a huge surprise.

Click to expand...

It's called "cherry-picking". It's also why "global warming" is a misnomer. "Climate change" is the more accurate term. One concern among climate researchers is that the melting of the ice caps could shut down the Atlantic conveyor belt system.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

Click to expand...

The change to “Climate Change” was not by choice

World temps stopped rising and the mam-made-global-warming-we’re-all-gonna-die chant was making the greenies look like fools

It might appear that way when you don't bother to read beyond the headline you were shown in your right-wing disinformation silo of choice before copy-pasting the article here.

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it's not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.

None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend. Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. Another point is both February 1998 and February 2016 were peak El Niño months so the record declines are starting from high peaks—but it's also true that there have been many other peak El Niño months in the past century and none were followed by such dramatic cooling.

My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story.

It might appear that way when you don't bother to read beyond the headline you were shown in your right-wing disinformation silo of choice before copy-pasting the article hereNone of this argues against global warming..

Well not according to the AGW folks. Their position can never be wrong for even a cooling is what they say happens with global warming. So, they cannot lose. If the earth cools, it is still warming, and of course if it is warming, that happens to with global warming.

Of course if you saw something like this, heads I win, tales you lose in other areas of life, most will call it out really quick, that this is what con men do. ha ha. But not when it comes to this issue. So no matter what temps end up being, it does not matter. Even if you got 20 years of cooling, they would say this is to be expected with global warming. For warming is special, and what you would say about any other field making these claims would mean something, but it is exempt from incoherence.

So when you can only prove global warming by co2 exists, no matter what happens...heads I win, tales you lose, and cooling equals warming and warming equals warming...ha ha ha. Well, it starts to look like a religion with its faithful and true believers. Complete with the religious like fervor.

It looks like science can turn into something resembling a religion. And some people are saying just that. And some of these are scientists. Who are basically called heretics by those with the faith. Seldom are the points made by these heretics get addressed, for if they are heretics there is no need to address the points these scientists will make, in questioning the "settled science". Yet the very history of science involves what some say was settled, as being far from settled, evidenced by new discoveries and new knowledge that comes from such discoveries. So real scientists have qualms about uttering certitude when it comes to science. But others don't seem to have such a reluctance. ha ha. Priests of any religion generally do not have reluctance either, when it comes to their beliefs about their religion. And like some scientists, exhibit certainty. The scientists who will not have such certainty of course become heretics. ha ha ha.

I think that even if we saw the beginning of another ice age, the faithful would still say it is global warming. This paradigm is very common among all of the religious.

I like what freeman dyson said on this subject. That even if the earth was warming, due to natural climate change, aided by co2 levels being higher, that this may be a good thing instead of a bad thing, once the net good or net bad is determined. For a warming earth has always benefited our species, and its the cooling that brings the most negative effects.

As population continues to grow, a warmer earth, opening up new agricultural areas to the north, might be the means to feed an ever growing population of humans.

So I am wondering now....if you double your human population, adding more bodies at the heat of 98.6, would adding billions over time warm up the earth? And since co2 levels, higher levels is said to also warm up the climate, has anyone ever figured out what losing hundreds of millions of acres of forests and other flora has added to the co2 levels, given that plants extract co2 from the air?

And if we were so concerned about co2 levels rising and driving global warming, why has there been no effort, worldwide, to stop rain forest deforestation as we also added billions of co2 extracting flora? The lack of such an effort, and only wanting to address it with carbon taxes, seems just a bit suspect here. And it should make anyone suspicious! For it looks like carbon taxes, which is a way to redistribute money from everyone else, into the hands of the few at the top who are already richer than hell, is the only thing some people want to do to address rising co2 and a warming.

If the world does not ever get serious about land management, and only will try to solve a problem with taxation, redistributing income to the top, then clearly this is not a very serious issue at all. And it looks just like another scheme to make the rich, richer.

Well not according to the AGW folks. Their position can never be wrong for even a cooling is what they say happens with global warming. So, they cannot lose. If the earth cools, it is still warming, and of course if it is warming, that happens to with global warming.

Of course if you saw something like this, heads I win, tales you lose in other areas of life, most will call it out really quick, that this is what con men do. ha ha. But not when it comes to this issue. So no matter what temps end up being, it does not matter. Even if you got 20 years of cooling, they would say this is to be expected with global warming. For warming is special, and what you would say about any other field making these claims would mean something, but it is exempt from incoherence.

So when you can only prove global warming by co2 exists, no matter what happens...heads I win, tales you lose, and cooling equals warming and warming equals warming...ha ha ha. Well, it starts to look like a religion with its faithful and true believers. Complete with the religious like fervor.

It looks like science can turn into something resembling a religion. And some people are saying just that. And some of these are scientists. Who are basically called heretics by those with the faith. Seldom are the points made by these heretics get addressed, for if they are heretics there is no need to address the points these scientists will make, in questioning the "settled science". Yet the very history of science involves what some say was settled, as being far from settled, evidenced by new discoveries and new knowledge that comes from such discoveries. So real scientists have qualms about uttering certitude when it comes to science. But others don't seem to have such a reluctance. ha ha. Priests of any religion generally do not have reluctance either, when it comes to their beliefs about their religion. And like some scientists, exhibit certainty. The scientists who will not have such certainty of course become heretics. ha ha ha.